Humor at its sickest
Mine May Be A Reality Soon.
Published on April 8, 2004 By mikimouse In Current Events
With the coming election and the obvious fact that Iraq is turning into a quagmire with no end in sight, Bush and Co. have to remain very wary of the June 30 handover of power to the Iraqi Government. The one question people have to ask (which they never do) when something major happens is 'who benefits'? With all the mumbo jumbo on the airwaves about who's to blame, who's fault is whose, no one gets to any suspects if one would only ask the question 'who benefits'? Who is the real winner with all the serious uprisings going on in Iraq? Who, in the ultimate end, gains from the death and carnage filling our airwaves? Before you answer that think about this related thought. We now know the US-trained Iraqi military and the US-trained Iraqi police force are not any kind of authority voice in Iraq. They abandoned their police stations and are in negotiations with Al-Sadr for their reoccupying their own police station. They have not helped the Americans and in fact ran away from the enemy they had sworn to battle. Now let's go back to the original question. Who benefits from the unrest in Iraq. The Bush Administration cannot and will not allow anarchy and non-governance to reign in Iraq anytime after the June 30 handover of power. Bush cannot be campaigning so near to the election with Iraq in utter chaos due to the handover of power. That is political suicide. The only real option for Bush and Co. is to not allow the handover to take place. For the Bush Administration to be able to sell it to the US public they will need near anarchy in Iraq. And all we need to do is to take a look at the specific actions that made this all come about. The Al-Sadr newspaper, with a mere 10,000 readers, was closed on the orders of Paul Bremer. The reason given was because it incites violence towards the occupying invader. That may be well and good, but to believe that one would have to think Bremer is a total f**ktard for not knowing what reaction his actions would provoke. He then ordered the man's home to be surrounded by his forces. Anyone else think this makes the scene ripe for the makings of a martyr, considering the man is so anti-American and has many violent followers? These actions of the US were not designed for making any kind of peace and the intellectual class knows it. The actions would only produce flare-ups of violence. In that light it's fair to say the Bush Administration would benefit from a restless violent Iraq. A violent Iraq will hold back the transfer of power and then Bush will continue to sell the public the light at the end of the tunnel. The transfer of power will be promised to occur in the first half of 2005.
The US is losing major support for the war in Iraq. The US public needs something to believe in now that they have lost much faith in the war and it's causes. My predictions for the future are this: 1. A major terror attack will befall the US in late September/mid-October. At first I thought it likely to occur on American soil but then the thought hit me. The attack that will bring the US together again, united in the renewed war on terror, will be on the US forces in Iraq. And I don't think it will be anything conventional. It will be much more dramatic than mere battle. 2. The planned handover of power to the Iraqi people will be delayed probably until early 2005. 3. Osama will be presented as a war trophy to be placed in the White House War on Terror Trophy Case. 4. Bush will again win the Presidential election more decisively than he did in the 2000 election. 5. Weapons of Mass Destruction will be "found" in Iraq sometimes in the future, likely in the late summer period.
These are simply my thoughts on where I think the politics of today will lead us into tomorrow. I hope I am wrong, and hell, maybe I even pray that I'm wrong. But this is what I feel will happen. What are your predictions for the future people? Do you agree with me on any or all or none of what I think? If anything at all, I hope you start asking yourself the question 'who benefits' after you've read this. It's the loaded question people don't really want to ask, ever.

Comments
on Apr 08, 2004
"Cynic" is becoming a political movement to rival the Republicrats in America. courageous post for this site. It is a sign you are thinking enough to form an opinion and put it out there.

I am not ready to concede the point that a terrorist event will occur as many are predicting yet, however. I listened to the rant about the mandatory draft and decided it would be too fascist a move, and so would not occur despite the warnings of the left - it hasn't.

At this point so many are talking about the planned terrorist event, it is going to become a self-fulfilling prophecy if we aren't careful. I just don't see it happening; at least not by Bush. A terrorist event that occurs should not be shallowly assigned to this President without evidence.

The events of the last week are quite disturbing I agree. It is an anomaly, taking more lives in a any day since 'major hostilities' ceased. Whether it is part of a larger plan remains to be seen. Were it deliberate and planned to make it appear worse than things are, I would think the 'controlled-media' would be inflating the death toll, not minimizing it, as they are doing (with the exception of CNN which is going positively Liberal over it).

The events are more likely the result of surprise and good planning by the occupied people of Iraq. That it coincides with a mecca, is a coin toss to me right now. I know it was PROBABLY dumb luck on their part. I also know that the plans submitted to Bush in 2000 included the invasion of Iran and Syria. AND the bombing of the mosque was clearly provocative also, I note. So I am a little pro, a little anti, on it right now.

The suppression of freedom of the press was also planned over a year ago. I guess 'democracy' for Bush entails such actions, but it WAS part of the contracts he paid for long before this week, so may also be mere coincidence to occur now. The powers that be aren't naive in understanding America has not won friends by this occupation, and that number won't be growing anytime soon. Force may be the strategy, with attrition of dissent the goal.

likewise I have read the 'Usama is in custody' rumors and they are not necessarily false from what I've read on it. There are some slips of the tongue that make this a possibility. We now know Saddam was in custody of Iraqi's and used as a bargaining chip for power, so it is not out of the realm of tactics for this President to do such.

Bush and re-election is not at all a done deal, and appearing to be losing in Iraq won't help him either. The 'vietnamization' of Iraq will take its' toll on him by November, and the body count won't decrease. I see much more to come out that is contrary to what has been represented till now. Just today we learned that in August, Dr. Rice, who has stated they had no clue to rely on in regard to al-Qaeda before 9/11, had been handed a report titled a report of Usama bin Ladin's plans to carryout a terrorist attack in America [paraphrased but feel free to correct me and provide the full title anyone]. Kind of puts that cove to bed for me.

As to the WMD, I think they will not show up in Iraq, as may have been abortively tried, by some accounts. I think they'll show up in Syria or Iran, which is going to be evidence of cynical truth if it does. This I am more willing to bet on than the other positions. It fits and would be too easy to carry out to be un-covered easily.

So let's review. 1. No (if it does, I bet heavily against Bush being involved), 2.definitley; 3. possibly; 4. doubtfully; 5. probably.
on Apr 08, 2004
thanks for the response sir. As you were.
on Apr 08, 2004
As to Bush, 'vietnamization of Iraq', and re-election, this just in:

"The Pew Research Center survey showed that just 40 percent of Americans approve of Bush's handling of Iraq, down from 59 percent in January, when the capture of former president Saddam Hussein was still fresh. At the time of that capture in December, 44 percent said Bush had a clear plan for resolving the situation in Iraq; the latest poll found 32 percent agreed. The most significant shift in attitudes occurred among political independents. In January, a solid majority approved of the way Bush was handling Iraq. Today, a solid majority disapproves, a shift that could mean political trouble if the president cannot reverse perceptions in the coming months. "

Speaking on the Senate floor, Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) said: "Now, after a year of continued strife in Iraq, comes word that the commander of forces in the region is seeking options to increase the number of U.S. troops on the ground if necessary. Surely I am not the only one who hears echoes of Vietnam in this development."

These are from an article in the Washington Post of today. Here's a link hope it works:
Link

Blog ON.

on Apr 08, 2004
thanks for the link and yes I think I shall blog on. At least to get some of these thoughts out. Especially 'who benefits?'. Bigtime especially. Again thanks!
on Apr 10, 2004
Of course you hear the echos of vietnam. It is a war, so there are similarities. It is also vaguely reminiscent of the Somme, Siege of Malta and the zulu uprising.
This war is very different on so many levels. The "vietnamization" of Iraq is just a scare tactic played out by the demo's to give rise to the hollywood fueled fears of the American public. However, If power isn't handed over as planned, my opinion may change.
BTW, nice article miki
on Apr 10, 2004
I would have read your article if it had been written in paragraphs.
on Apr 10, 2004
I agree that the June 30th date seems impossible at the moment. Time will tell. I am afraid that it will take more troops in Iraq and a greater loss of soldiers lives before their is any kind of stable government in Iraq. I do not think Bush is benefitting at all from a chaotic Iraq. I do not think they will ever find WPM. It seems to me that people waved flags here for about two weeks after the initial attack on Iraq and then it became old news. Our soldiers are still over their dying but I don't see anyone wearing little red, white and blue ribbons etc. anymore.

This is a hard issue for me. I did not agree that we should have gone there in the first place but now that we are there I think we have to see things through and get a stable government in place but I think this will be very hard to do. My husband is in the military and he thinks if I don't agree with the politics of Iraq that I am not supporting him. I do love and support him but that doesn't mean that I can't question the motivation of Bush. I agree Hussein was a bad guy and that they are better off without him but its much more complicated than that.
on Apr 11, 2004
I predict things will be lovely.
on Apr 11, 2004
Sorry to hear that Locamama. A husband and wife would at least respect the thoughts of one another, to the point where you wouldn't be rocking the marital boat so to speak. Actually your opinion is well stated. Simple and true. It's too bad you're getting the shaft from the hubby. And Sexstump c'mon man you could have come up with something better than that. If you don't mind I'll plug your site here to the few viewers of this blog. www.sexstump.com
Come one come all to a cool site with a nice section about me and many other oddity realities in life. not odd realities (actually yes but that's not the point) but oddity realities. If you understand that, here's to ya!
on Apr 14, 2004
As to the issue of WMD being planted in Iraq to assist this President, here is a link to an article from today that keeps popping up on the net. Link

The thing about it is the story is growing with time, now some professors getting involved saying they are being threatened if they don't create testimony to cover for the planters. We'll see what happens.
on May 11, 2004
http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=60779fab8ff80be8
Feels nice to be vindicated on one count so far.